I still don’t get this idea that the people who use an existing symbol decides what it means, period. It’s the same argument that people use to say “nigger” means a bad person or “faggot” refers to bad motorcyclist.
The only reason why the oppressed are able to repurpose a symbol is because their use of it contradicts the original meaning. The juxtaposition makes it clear that the original meaning isn’t to be used. That doesn’t give them free reign, but it does allow them to say they are specifically negating the symbol.
In fact, if Jewish people said the cross was an anti-Semitic symbol, I would probably reject that, unless they had proof the same way we do about about the origins of the Confederate flag and it being revived to be used in an anti-Jewish cause. I would try to be nice and not unnecessarily offend by using it, but I wouldn’t reject its use outright like I do the Confederate flag.
Instead, the cross works like the American flag–what it stands for is not bad, even if what it does stand for has, in the past, done some bad things. It should be there in appropriate contexts.
Notes: Yes, the swastika wasn’t designed to be bigoted, but the original was resurrected and redesigned for that use. And, no, the cross isn’t really a reclaimed symbol–yes, crosses were used for execution, but the [SIZE=“2”]
symbol wasn’t really used to mean that.[/SIZE]
